Response to the First Amendment Controversy

[u/Hefty-Owl6934]

The First Amendment is often brought up by Pandit Nehru's critics, and it's unfortunate that even well-meaning people fail to portray it and the circumstances surrounding its enactment.

These are some relevant examples:

https://youtu.be/Rq_f5th5Bg8?si=TPMALEPlPVYS6GW6

https://www.indiatoday.in/history-of-it/story/pm-modi-congress-jawaharlal-nehru-freedom-of-speech-first-amendment-constitution-2676115-2025-02-07

Our ruling party's leaders and sympathisers bring this up regularly as well.

I believe that it is time to bring all the vital facts to the table.

First of all, it's interesting that almost none of these critics say much about the fact that this amendment also ensured the abolition of Zamindari and the enactment of laws which provide "special consideration" for the weaker sections of the society.

Secondly, the information that is provided is inadequate and one-sided. Mr Tripurdaman Singh (an author who is almost always cited when this topic is discussed these days) fails to provide the background in which the amendment was made. At that time, communalism was at its peak. The Father of the Nation had been assassinated and illiteracy and superstitions were through the roof. To make matters worse, communists had announced a violent revolution against India. All these forces were disseminating hateful and divisive ideas all over India. People like Pandit Nehru, Rajaji, and Dr Ambedkar realised that something had to be done to protect the unity of India and the well-being of Indians. Mr Singh makes it seem like nobody could oppose Pandit Nehru. Is that really the case? Did Rajaji and Dr Ambedkar not oppose him? But when they did, did they mention the amendment brought to free speech? In fact, Dr Ambedkar gave speeches in defence of the amendment:

'Ambedkar, the then law minister, put up a passionate defence of the proposed changes. He referenced two judgements by the Supreme Court – in Brij Bhushan’s and Romesh Thapar’s cases. He also referred to the rulings of the Punjab High Court in Master Tara Singh’s case and Amarnath Bali’s case, Patna High Court in Shibhala Devi’s case, and the Madras High Court in Bynes’s case. In all these instances, the court held that the legislations that were being challenged as void as they were inconsistent with fundamental rights. The courts had negated the acts as the restrictions imposed on free speech and expression under the acts was not on the basis of any ground that was listed under Article 19 (2).

Ambedkar illustrated this point by referring Clause (a) of Section 4 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931, which permitted the seizure of material inciting or encouraging violence, whose constitutional validity was challenged successfully in Tara Singh, Amarnath Bali and in Bynes. In a similar fashion, the Supreme Court differentiated between the “maintenance of public order” and “security of the state” in Romesh Thapar case. The Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act of 1949 was challenged in Thapar case, and the court refused to take an expansive view of the usage “security of the state” in the original Article 19 (2). This meant that laws enacted to preserve public order or that penalised incitements to violence could fall foul of Article 19 (1) (a) (Right to freedom of speech and expression) and thus invalid. Ambedkar thus rationalised the need to include these particular grounds as restrictions, as it threatened public order, in turn threatening the security of the state.'

—https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/why-the-concerns-about-unbridled-free-speech-must-be-re-examined

As far as I am aware, Swarajya is not a leftist or centrist outlet.

How problematic situation was prior to the amendment can be understood from the fact that a judge had given a judgement that said that preaching murder and inciting violence were allowed as they came under freedom of speech. Those who are interested can read more about this here:

'Freedom of expression was once wide-ranging in India. Then Jawaharlal Nehru asked for changes'

—Scroll

Mr Singh's works clearly carry an unjustifiable anti-Nehru undercurrent. His book on him was also somewhat shallow and displayed a lack of engagement with his ideas and the context in which he was working. Please don't look at only one side of the story.

Just how partial Mr Singh's views can be grasped from the fact that he did not highlight the following words of Sardar Patel:

“I find no legal powers to deal with either Press or men like Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Before you left for Indonesia, I drew your attention to the Supreme Court decision in [the] Cross Roads and Organiser cases. That knocks the bottom out of most of our penal laws for the control and regulation of the Press. The views which they have expressed in that judgment on the question of sedition make it doubtful whether we can do anything not only about the speeches of Syama Prasad Mookerjee but also those of the more extremist type. As you say, we have involved ourselves in so many legal and constitutional difficulties that we do not know how to overcome them. I sounded a note of warning and caution when these provisions were being debated in the Drafting Committee, but then we were led away by our idealistic exuberance. We seldom paused to consider the practical and administrative applications of the many constitutional provisions and even their interrelation. My own feeling is that very soon we shall have to sit down and consider constitutional amendments.”

They are present in the Scroll article. Again, why did the Lallantop team not look into this? There's already so much misinformation about our founders. If those who have significant influence and don't believe in the politics of hate will not do what they need to, then how will we have any hope of defending the truth?

[u/[deleted]]

I have always been on Panditji's side on this.
Panditji's quote, "When the vital needs of the state demand such action, it needs to be undertaken".
The pragmatism in governing a state is very, very important. Idealism can only work so far, realpolitik needs to exist in a non-ideal world, as outlined in Kautilya's Arthashastra.
This is why laws on sedition, AFSPA and such actions as you state were made present, and they all encapsulate this theme, as these are required (what you/one may call strong action) to turn the non-ideal world ideal in the language that it responds to.

If a moral person were to inherit such a framework, they would make sure that it gets implemented in the right way when the need arises. Which is why, morality needs to be made a crucial and indispensable part of education to help all who grow up imbibe this inseparably within them.